When layering for cold weather, try to use not-underwear all the way
to the skin.

That seems a bit confusing. Not-underwear? Over-wear? all the way to
the skin?

I meant only that each layer should be one that you wouldn't mind
exposing by removing the layer above it.

Poof, all that struggling and erasing, and there was an easy way to
say it! At intervals, I considered complaining to alt.usage.english
that we have words for underwear and outerwear, but not for wear that
is neither.

Back when one could buy cycling clothes in women's sizes, and I didn't
have to improvise with sweat pants, "leggings" and the like, I would
start by putting on my wool shorts and a short-sleeved top, then add
up to three pairs of tights and any number of jerseys. (I had one
pair of alpaca tights that I could wear only in January, so three
pairs were always enough.)

This winter I may, if Tuesday's shopping trip isn't successful (it's
well past the season for buying warm clothes), wind up wearing wool
tights with embarrassing holes under my sweat pants.

I changed the return route after reading in Aldi's flyer that they
will sell wool socks on Tuesday. Going to Aldi will shorten the trip,
but I generally come out of big-box stores tired, and might want to
shorten the ride anyway. And if I'm feeling frisky, Parker Street
isn't my favorite way to get across US 30, and the crossing at 350 W
is quite nice.

I'm already wearing a disquieting amount of cotton. I hope to replace
some of it with polyester on Tuesday. (I can stand poly in very cold
weather.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mostly ready to go. I've decided to cross at Parker even if it's
still early (sun sets at 5:21), in order to buy sushi for supper.

Rats. When I checked the time of sunset with Weather Underground, I
learned that Wednesday's rain has been moved up to Tuesday. And me
with nothing to wear but cotton.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot nethttp://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

When layering for cold weather, try to use not-underwear all the way
to the skin.

That seems a bit confusing. Not-underwear? Over-wear? all the way to
the skin?

I meant only that each layer should be one that you wouldn't mind
exposing by removing the layer above it.

Poof, all that struggling and erasing, and there was an easy way to
say it! At intervals, I considered complaining to alt.usage.english
that we have words for underwear and outerwear, but not for wear that
is neither.

Back when one could buy cycling clothes in women's sizes, and I didn't
have to improvise with sweat pants, "leggings" and the like, I would
start by putting on my wool shorts and a short-sleeved top, then add
up to three pairs of tights and any number of jerseys. (I had one
pair of alpaca tights that I could wear only in January, so three
pairs were always enough.)

This winter I may, if Tuesday's shopping trip isn't successful (it's
well past the season for buying warm clothes), wind up wearing wool
tights with embarrassing holes under my sweat pants.

I changed the return route after reading in Aldi's flyer that they
will sell wool socks on Tuesday. Going to Aldi will shorten the trip,
but I generally come out of big-box stores tired, and might want to
shorten the ride anyway. And if I'm feeling frisky, Parker Street
isn't my favorite way to get across US 30, and the crossing at 350 W
is quite nice.

I'm already wearing a disquieting amount of cotton. I hope to replace
some of it with polyester on Tuesday. (I can stand poly in very cold
weather.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mostly ready to go. I've decided to cross at Parker even if it's
still early (sun sets at 5:21), in order to buy sushi for supper.

Rats. When I checked the time of sunset with Weather Underground, I
learned that Wednesday's rain has been moved up to Tuesday. And me
with nothing to wear but cotton.
--
Cheers,

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:22:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:
Does a bicycle have the right to ignore traffic laws in the U.S.?

On a more serious note: In the U.S. we are obsessed with safety.
We will do *anything*, however expensive, that will "improve safety".

However, it is plain and obvious that people can't sin; only objects
can sin. Therefore it's a waste of time to teach people to look both
ways before crossing a railroad, or to ask drivers to notice what is
ahead of them. Nothing but changes in the infrastructure can ever
improve safety.

So where-ever a "yield" sign is required, we put up a stop sign.
Stopping is ever so much safer than yielding.

I don't think I've ever seen a "yield" sign anywhere except inside a
roundabout. The city fathers sign off on whether or not to fund a
roundabout, but don't vote on individual signs inside the roundabout,
so signs inside the roundabout are chosen by traffic engineers.

So all our drivers have been trained that a red octagon means "yield".

One intersection within walking distance of my house saw several
serious collisions before the powers that be put an orange flag on the
top of the sign, and another sign below it that said "cross traffic
does not stop", to indicate that this stop sign actually is a stop
sign.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 22:06:50 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:22:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:
Does a bicycle have the right to ignore traffic laws in the U.S.?

On a more serious note: In the U.S. we are obsessed with safety.
We will do *anything*, however expensive, that will "improve safety".

I think that the term is more likely "obsessed with the idea of
safety". Some years ago I was doing my usual tirade about bicycle
safety helmets and someone replied that what he/she looked for was
"light weight and good ventilation". Not a peep about "safe".
However, it is plain and obvious that people can't sin; only objects
can sin. Therefore it's a waste of time to teach people to look both
ways before crossing a railroad, or to ask drivers to notice what is
ahead of them. Nothing but changes in the infrastructure can ever
improve safety.

Back when I was in the Air Force the Safety Manual had it that the
vast majority of accidents were caused by unsafe acts and I believe
that the current theory hasn't changed.

On the other hand it seems that the Safety Managers have given up
trying to keep the fools from sticking their finger in the power saw
and now are relying more and more on building things so that you can't
stick you finger in the hole.
So where-ever a "yield" sign is required, we put up a stop sign.
Stopping is ever so much safer than yielding.

I don't think I've ever seen a "yield" sign anywhere except inside a
roundabout. The city fathers sign off on whether or not to fund a
roundabout, but don't vote on individual signs inside the roundabout,
so signs inside the roundabout are chosen by traffic engineers.

So all our drivers have been trained that a red octagon means "yield".

One intersection within walking distance of my house saw several
serious collisions before the powers that be put an orange flag on the
top of the sign, and another sign below it that said "cross traffic
does not stop", to indicate that this stop sign actually is a stop
sign.

Put a Cop on the corner with a camera. Everyone that runs the stop
sign gets his picture taken and a $100 fine :-)
--
Cheers,

On 11/23/2017 9:06 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:22:01 +0700, John B.
wrote:
Does a bicycle have the right to ignore traffic laws in the U.S.?

On a more serious note: In the U.S. we are obsessed with safety.
We will do *anything*, however expensive, that will "improve safety".

However, it is plain and obvious that people can't sin; only objects
can sin. Therefore it's a waste of time to teach people to look both
ways before crossing a railroad, or to ask drivers to notice what is
ahead of them. Nothing but changes in the infrastructure can ever
improve safety.

So where-ever a "yield" sign is required, we put up a stop sign.
Stopping is ever so much safer than yielding.

I don't think I've ever seen a "yield" sign anywhere except inside a
roundabout. The city fathers sign off on whether or not to fund a
roundabout, but don't vote on individual signs inside the roundabout,
so signs inside the roundabout are chosen by traffic engineers.

So all our drivers have been trained that a red octagon means "yield".

One intersection within walking distance of my house saw several
serious collisions before the powers that be put an orange flag on the
top of the sign, and another sign below it that said "cross traffic
does not stop", to indicate that this stop sign actually is a stop
sign.

We have a few of those "cross traffic does not stop" signs around here,
too. It's an interesting bit of safety escalation. The next step, I
suppose, might be a sign saying "No, really! We're not kidding!" added
to the MUTCD.

But regarding stop signs where yield signs might suffice: AFAIK, every
intersection anywhere around here has _something_ - usually a stop sign,
very rarely a yield sign, and of course lots of traffic lights.

I remember reading about rules for unmarked intersections, but I never
experienced one until a few years ago. We were on vacation out west and
I was taking a bike ride in some tiny town. Sure enough, in the
residential areas, there were no signs at all at the intersections.
People were apparently supposed to work out right-of-way, with the
vehicle at the right winning in the case of a tie.

It seemed to work OK. There were no piles of broken car parts or body
parts at the intersections.

Back when I was in the Air Force the Safety Manual had it that the
vast majority of accidents were caused by unsafe acts and I believe
that the current theory hasn't changed.

On the other hand it seems that the Safety Managers have given up
trying to keep the fools from sticking their finger in the power saw
and now are relying more and more on building things so that you can't
stick you finger in the hole.

When I was fresh out of school and just started working as a plant
engineer, one of my first duties was to supervise the installation of a
certain machine. It had two steel pinch rollers at the very top that
pulled in a six foot wide web of material for processing.

When the installation was done, the plant safety committee came around
to inspect. They looked at those pinch rollers (about 8 feet up above
ground level) and called over the tallest workman they could find. They
asked him to stand on tiptoe on a nearby step and see if he could reach
the rollers.

He strained and strained to reach up over the top of the machine, then
said "Yeah, I can just barely touch one of them." Immediately the head
of the safety team said "We need a trip cord across there, so if someone
tries that, it will immediately shut the machine down."

It took at least five minutes to put on my shoes this morning, but
I've remembered how to put on multiple socks:

When most of the second sock is gathered up on your instep, pause and
arrange the toe, then put weight on the ball of your foot and spread
your toes while you finish pulling on the sock. This keeps friction
from pulling the first sock too tight.